"Choose Your Pain" Klingon ship (Visual spoilers?)
- Thread starter Cranston
- Start date
Not remotely the same. This is way more drastic that anything in TMP. There is even perfect example
TMP went from this:
to this:
Whereas DIscovery went to this:
This is no way comparable.
Yeah, there really is. 40 years of klingon lore and style. The last image svreams Klingon, place a neck on it and its the same shape as the Negh'Veh.
The TOS and TMP look like human designs. It was not until the Bird of prey they started looking non human. This is moving the uniquely klingon look forward.
You need not like it, but this is now what a D7 looks like.
That wasn't a retcon Mirror Mirror, there was no explanation ever given in universe for the change of look so the events of the augment storyline were entirely consistent with what came before.
That's a good point. There could be multiple Klingon ship classes that are all called D7 (for whatever reason).
Again, we have no idea what D7 actually means. I'm sure the Klingons don't use that term, so it's probably just what Starfleet calls them. "D7" could mean things like ship size, crew complement, power consumption, armaments, etc. It doesn't actually have to be a class name.
Yeah, it was a retcon. They changed 40 years of history and made kirk look damned dumb.
I'll believe this when they have a female officer in a mini-skirt hiding behind the men claiming she's frightened.
No, see they did update the look all round. But klingons did not start to get thier own look until post TNG. If you really look at what we are seeing, it is in line with where that style was going.
Nope, they didn't alter any information that was given to us on-screen.
They own it, they can call it whatever they want. This is "Prime Universe" Trek now.
TOS? Not so much.
I dunno, I think designs like this always were generic - the designs that matter most to me personally are ones that suggest purpose - whereas when I look at those, I just see a bored concept artist with no ideas making a generic shape, and then seeing how many ribs they can fit onto it - "take five isosceles triangles, drop them randomly on a table to make your spacecraft, then add a shit-ton of lines, ridges, ribs and surface details to them". The result:
Would anyone recognize that silhouette as Klingon if it turned up randomly?
The original Enterprise, Romulan Bird of Prey and Klingon D7 on the other hand were designed to be instantly recognizable from their silhouette alone. Gene Coon and Gene Roddenbury were WW2 veterans - their directive was to make ships distinguishable from one another at a glance - like a WW2 airplane recognition chart.
A ship like the connie suggests utility - it's pods have some reason behind them even if you don't know the exact reason, you can guess they are engines - the shuttle-bay seems to be in a logical place - the nacelles are offset from the hull for some reason, etc. The enemy ships have similar features to suggest commonality of technology.
The Klingon ship at the top of this post has no discernable bridge, engines, shuttle bay, weapons, or anything - it's silhouette is so generic it could be a Delta Quadrant alien-of-the-week that Janeway runs into.
For this reason, elaborate for it's own sake, has never been a good idea to me.
Only when it's elaborate for a reason for intricacy do I like it - like a Warhammer 40,000 ship is suggestive of a Gothic Cathedral - perfect for a galactic empire that can barely understand it's own technology anymore - and has regressed into a Catholic/Nazi totalitarian theocracy where people believe electricity is the will of god:
The Klingon ship above just looks like something from a modern Hollywood B-movie, like Skyline:
To me (a person who, as you all know, was fed up of the way Klingons were in DS9, and advocated for their change) - the crux is not their visual appearance, but their intangible culture - the thing that most needed re-imagining about the Klingons was not their ships, tricorders, disruptors, or any other material prop - it was their society, their character, and other intangible things like that, which had grown into a boring stereotype through lack of thought - the fact they all talked in a stupid raspy tone of voice, and were apparently universally incapable of going five steps without taking offense, was grating and obnoxious - the obsession with words like 'honor, bloodwine, kahless' in every sentence of dialogue was atrocious.
So, some people might say, "hey, USS Einstein, arn't you the one who has been saying for years on TrekBBS that the Klingons needed a huge reboot"? But I never had a problem with their beautiful starships - their canonical appearance - there was no need for their most common ship to suddenly look nothing like it has for 50 years (yes, the D7 has looked the same in appearances from 1969's "Day of the Dove" to 2009's "Star Trek" !!!) - the problem was purely in their writing.
I agree with all of this. Even a different texture on the traditional shape would be better.
Also.
Reckon I could sue?
https://jaime9526.deviantart.com/art/S-S-Messalina-182582224
XD
Yeah, they did. It changed everything in the movies, every single interaction with the Klingon changed. Amazing how they never covered the trill or worfs 5 face changes. I find it ironic how you guys are cool with some major retcons and outraged over others.
I kinda wish Alex Kurtzman or whoever would see the thread, just to see that most people are not being unreasonable - they understand dramatic license and the need for fresh creativity - but the thing with the D7 feels like 'Enterprise', or the Kelvin films, all over again - we are getting mixed messages from the showrunners - ambiguity over it's canonicity - sitting on the fence, which actually creates bad faith.
1969:
1979:
2001:
2009:
If this is a reboot come out and say it, definitively. Perhaps honesty would serve better than trying to muddy the truth for ratings, and only pissing people off with mixed expectations?
Instead we have producers saying it 'takes place in the Prime Timeline', authors saying they respect what has been done with the setting, and officials saying 'it will all be explained in time - all seeming canon contradictions will be resolved/explained'. Well that's a pretty fucking specific and expectation-building claim to make, so if it turns out that we are being misled, how are people going to feel?
Oh, and the worst thing? This has all happened before. Are producers not aware of how controversial these things can be, and how much bad faith can be created when a clear message isn't given, after what, a half-dozen very public controversies? In an era when Marvel is highly faithful to 1960s comics, Star Wars basically makes a big budget fan film in Rogue One, and Blade Runner 2049 is praised for it's fidelity to the original in terms of both visuals and themes, why is Star Trek again at the center of a mounting controversy over fidelity, with something as basic as a ship design that has existed for 40 years being replaced outright, in a show that executives insist is 'Prime Timeline' and 'faithful'?
1969:
1979:
2001:
2009:
If this is a reboot come out and say it, definitively. Perhaps honesty would serve better than trying to muddy the truth for ratings, and only pissing people off with mixed expectations?
Instead we have producers saying it 'takes place in the Prime Timeline', authors saying they respect what has been done with the setting, and officials saying 'it will all be explained in time - all seeming canon contradictions will be resolved/explained'. Well that's a pretty fucking specific and expectation-building claim to make, so if it turns out that we are being misled, how are people going to feel?
Oh, and the worst thing? This has all happened before. Are producers not aware of how controversial these things can be, and how much bad faith can be created when a clear message isn't given, after what, a half-dozen very public controversies? In an era when Marvel is highly faithful to 1960s comics, Star Wars basically makes a big budget fan film in Rogue One, and Blade Runner 2049 is praised for it's fidelity to the original in terms of both visuals and themes, why is Star Trek again at the center of a mounting controversy over fidelity, with something as basic as a ship design that has existed for 40 years being replaced outright, in a show that executives insist is 'Prime Timeline' and 'faithful'?
The fact the Klingons cured the augment virus sometime between the end of TOS and the Movies changes nothing.
Remember, they designed a Klingon battlecruiser for Into Darkness which was ultimately cut. It looked like this:
The concept was "three skyscrapers jammed together"
The concept was "three skyscrapers jammed together"
Another pic:
You said yourself, not used, rejected even, so yeah.
The Bird of Prey like ship they did use was a D-4 patrol ship. Even using the BoP sound effect. And the Klingons had hair, humanoid form and ridges.
So the film rejected this change and tried something actually Klingon, still making it look new and updated while being something both audiences could get behind. They did it "right", Discovery did it "wrong".
It's not that fucking hard.
The Bird of Prey like ship they did use was a D-4 patrol ship. Even using the BoP sound effect. And the Klingons had hair, humanoid form and ridges.
So the film rejected this change and tried something actually Klingon, still making it look new and updated while being something both audiences could get behind. They did it "right", Discovery did it "wrong".
It's not that fucking hard.
It wasn't rejected because the design was too different to what came before, it was rejected because the scene it was meant for was cut (Uhura talking down a Klingon fleet which followed the Enterprise and Vengeance to Earth)
Similar threads
